Unconstitutional legislation & the unjustified cost to taxpayers for defending it.

reply to post by crazyewok


I am more of the libertarian mind set, "free thinking". I would never vote for anyone because they had a certain letter by their name.

I voted the last 2 presidential election for the only incorruptible man in American politics. "the good doctor" the esteemed Ron Paul.

He has the most consistent voting record of any politician in modern times. He never took bribes, he never let the lobbyists talk him away from his values.

He was in fact the only politician I ever felt I could believe. No wonder both parties fought so hard to keep him down.

oblvion
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I am more of the libertarian mind set, "free thinking". I would never vote for anyone because they had a certain letter by their name.

I voted the last 2 presidential election for the only incorruptible man in American politics. "the good doctor" the esteemed Ron Paul.

He has the most consistent voting record of any politician in modern times. He never took bribes, he never let the lobbyists talk him away from his values.

He was in fact the only politician I ever felt I could believe. No wonder both parties fought so hard to keep him down.

I don’t agree with everything that’s the Paul family stand for. BUT they do make a lot more sense and seem more in tune with their constituents they represent. Plus Rand Pauls actions in congress over Syria was to be admired

Id rather someone like that gets in power even though I might not agree with everything they say than the lying sleeze bags we mostly get.

Rather a honest politician I don’t agree with than a dishonest politician I do.

crazyewok
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I don’t support any at the moment, I’m waiting for the next election to see what springs up.

Labour Screwed the UK into 2 pointless wars and nearly catastrophic debt and crippling bureaucracy and Conservatives seem to focused on protecting there rich buddies and while draining the public for money and gutting pubic services while not actually cutting things like the previous governments bureaucracy and other pointless do dos that could save more money that bullying the general public. Not to mention the billions owed in tax evasion.

By the way I never even mentioned the word tax. So I suggest getting new reading glasses.

I just take exception at:
1)bureaucracy
2) Double standards in tax rules between the rich and poor
3) Giving billions in foreign bribes....sorry "aid" to countrys like India and China that dont need it. While we are in massive debt. Cuts should begain abroad not at home
4) Illegal wars

edit on 28-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

It sounds to me like your a libertarian also wok. Maybe you should be the guy that brings true liberty from these idiots to your people.

Dont ever vote for a party, vote for a person you can respect and trust.

reply to post by crazyewok


I dont agree with everything he says or wants either.

If the man tells you something though he means it, and will follow through. If you ask him a question, he doesnt use 146 words to say a lot but never actually answer the question. He just answers it, in plain english.

I respect that more than anything.

When asked about gay marriage he basically said, "I dont agree with it, but who am I to decide that for others"

When asked about most things of controversy that is pretty much his answer. It isnt the governments business in the first place, and he isnt trying to decide how everyone should live their lives or seek out their own form of happiness.

thisguyrighthere

jimmyx
reply to post by crazyewok

 

so...crazywok...what political group in England do you favor? or for that matter, in the world?....in many of the African and third world countries, you have total freedom, (as long as you have money for bribes)....you get to own any type of automatic weapon you want (as long as it is ok with the local warlord)...you get to have your own protective police force (as long as you have enough money to hire them)...you get to have food, shelter, and clothing (as long as you have the money to pay for it)....so how is this different from paying taxes?...

It's not. That's the problem.

Taxation at the barrel of a gun is just "nicer" phrasing than extortion at the barrel of a gun. No real difference. Glad you can see that.

edit on 28-2-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

what country do you live in where a government puts a gun to your head if you don't pay taxes? you have a trial, and if you lose, you do some jail time...if you don't pay off, or pay back, a warlord, you do six-feet-in-a-hole time.

reply to post by oblvion


I agree. Honesty and to the point is better than slick pleasing but empty words.

I would say im 75% libertarianism. I’m more for the government should keep out on a individuals business unless its life or death or for the very basic things to keep a country running healthy ad strong.

jimmyx

thisguyrighthere

jimmyx
reply to post by crazyewok

 

so...crazywok...what political group in England do you favor? or for that matter, in the world?....in many of the African and third world countries, you have total freedom, (as long as you have money for bribes)....you get to own any type of automatic weapon you want (as long as it is ok with the local warlord)...you get to have your own protective police force (as long as you have enough money to hire them)...you get to have food, shelter, and clothing (as long as you have the money to pay for it)....so how is this different from paying taxes?...

It's not. That's the problem.

Taxation at the barrel of a gun is just "nicer" phrasing than extortion at the barrel of a gun. No real difference. Glad you can see that.

edit on 28-2-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

what country do you live in where a government puts a gun to your head if you don't pay taxes? you have a trial, and if you lose, you do some jail time...if you don't pay off, or pay back, a warlord, you do six-feet-in-a-hole time.

I live in America of course. Land of the free and home of the brave.

“When I left there, it’s been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability,” Duncan told POLITICO. “Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?”

Read more: www.politico.com...

Must be Nerf AR's loaded with love pellets.

thisguyrighthere

jimmyx

thisguyrighthere

jimmyx
reply to post by crazyewok

 

so...crazywok...what political group in England do you favor? or for that matter, in the world?....in many of the African and third world countries, you have total freedom, (as long as you have money for bribes)....you get to own any type of automatic weapon you want (as long as it is ok with the local warlord)...you get to have your own protective police force (as long as you have enough money to hire them)...you get to have food, shelter, and clothing (as long as you have the money to pay for it)....so how is this different from paying taxes?...

It's not. That's the problem.

Taxation at the barrel of a gun is just "nicer" phrasing than extortion at the barrel of a gun. No real difference. Glad you can see that.

edit on 28-2-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

what country do you live in where a government puts a gun to your head if you don't pay taxes? you have a trial, and if you lose, you do some jail time...if you don't pay off, or pay back, a warlord, you do six-feet-in-a-hole time.

I live in America of course. Land of the free and home of the brave.

“When I left there, it’s been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability,” Duncan told POLITICO. “Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?”

Read more: www.politico.com...

Must be Nerf AR's loaded with love pellets.

maybe it's happening because of this:
www.fbi.gov...

BritofTexas
reply to post by Flatfish

 

The GOP only complains about spending only if it's on the poor and needy.

Corporations, Wall Street, Their own Pockets, Oppression, all worthy causes for Taxpayer money.

Even the Republican candidate for Texas Governor is off to an early start.....

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office was working on an appeal Thursday of a federal judge's decision to lift the state's ban on gay marriage.

Republican Wasting More Money

It could also be said that they don't approve of funding the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food & Drug Administration, or any form of energy that's not derived from fossil fuels.

I agree that there are plenty more examples of this waste & abuse than the few I presented in the OP. A short google search will show that what I offered only represents the "tip of the iceberg." This is happening is almost every single state with GOP controlled legislatures and Texas is no exception.

By the time it's all said and done, I wouldn't be surprised to find Texas right up there at the top of the list when it comes to taxpayer dollars waisted on failed lawsuits defending unconstitutional legislation.

We've got some really nutty people is our state house right now. People who would much rather spend the state's wealth defending unconstitutional law than providing school lunches for children or, God forbid, healthcare insurance.

Bassago
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Much of this seems to stem from the overreach of federal government. Basically the feds hate the idea of state rights that don't agree with whoever happens to be in power at the moment.

As example, you won't see the DOJ jumping in to defend constitutional rights in Connecticut over their ridiculous anti 2nd amendment law to register all those "assault weapons" but if that law down in Arizona to let private business owners refuse service to gay people would have passed... whoo boy. You can bet the DOJ would have been all over it.

This is all about ideological control and as long as they hold the purse strings we're screwed. Dems and GOP are both to blame and we'd be better of without either of them. That goes for lawyers too.

It is often the case that these lawsuits are brought to bear by private citizens and/or private organizations like Planned Parenthood, who are being discriminated against and not by the federal government. Furthermore, by and large it's the states who are losing these cases, not the Feds.

If anyone is trying to overreach here, it's those elected officials who are attempting to legislate according to their religious ideology and impose their personal beliefs on others.

On top of that, your outspoken distaste for lawyers could also be part of the problem. I'm not saying that I think all lawyers are good, only that a little bit of legal advice could have enlightened GOP legislators with respect to the unlikelihood that their nutty assed legislation would ever pass constitutional scrutiny to begin with.

Hell, even when the Justice Dept. stands up and refuses to waste another dime defending unconstitutional law, as was the case with DOMA, you can rest assured that the religious ideology driven GOP will be glad to step in and spend the hell out of our tax dollars to take up the futile effort. Remember when Speaker Boehner did just that?

www.politicususa.com...

John Boehner has skimmed $742,000 in House funds to defend DOMA, but his cap on the DOMA defense fund is actually $3.1 million taxpayer dollars.

In January, Speaker John Boehner and the House Republican leadership secretly raised the spending cap on their DOMA defense fund a third time to $3.1 million. The cap is now more than six times its original $500,000 limit. Democrats had no idea that the cap had been secretly raised until after it had already been finalized.

There is a HUGE difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and I pity you for not having the eyes to see it.

Bilk22
reply to post by Flatfish

 

How much is it costing us for the Obama Justice Dept to defend their scandals and spying?

Not sure, but before you end up with your foot in your mouth, I'd wait to see who comes out the winner in whatever cases it is that you're talking about.

So far, the Feds. track record for winning isn't that bad. It's the states, more specifically the GOP controlled states, who are losing their asses and having their laws overturned on an almost daily basis.

reply to post by jimmyx


Maybe. But if that's your contention then you must concede that there is a gun at your head to enforce taxation.

You can't say there isnt then say the IRS needs guns to point at your head because some people dont want to participate.

That would be "having it both ways".

Flatfish

Bilk22
reply to post by Flatfish

 

How much is it costing us for the Obama Justice Dept to defend their scandals and spying?

Not sure, but before you end up with your foot in your mouth, I'd wait to see who comes out the winner in whatever cases it is that you're talking about.

So far, the Feds. track record for winning isn't that bad. It's the states, more specifically the GOP controlled states, who are losing their asses and having their laws overturned on an almost daily basis.

And you think that will be a good thing? You have a very mixed up view of things.

Bilk22
And you think that will be a good thing? You have a very mixed up view of things.

Yeah, you're right. I'm one of those mixed up nuts who happens to believe that 47 attempts to repeal ObamaCare, while the Democrats control the Senate and the White House, is not only ludicrous but also a huge waste of time and tax dollars. Not to mention taking it all the way to the Supreme court just to find out it's constitutional.

Just call me crazy!

reply to post by Flatfish

It is often the case that these lawsuits are brought to bear by private citizens and/or private organizations like Planned Parenthood, who are being discriminated against and not by the federal government.

Uh huh, sure like the feds would never support a progressive group like Planned Parenthood. Right.

Don't get me wrong on that example though, I support PP but that's irrelevant to the issue.

On top of that, your outspoken distaste for lawyers could also be part of the problem.

If every lawyer on earth were dropped into the middle of the ocean today the world would be a better place tomorrow. I don't have distaste for lawyers, I despise them as parasites. Have a nice day.

Bassago
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Uh huh, sure like the feds would never support a progressive group like Planned Parenthood. Right.

Don't get me wrong on that example though, I support PP but that's irrelevant to the issue.

I'm not sure what your point is here. From what I could tell in the cases won by Planned Parenthood, the Feds didn't recover any attorney fees and I would suspect that was due to the fact that they didn't spend any.

That's not to say that people of like minds don't support each other's causes and battles when they believe them to be right, hell it's human nature. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that the Justice Dept. decides which cases to prosecute based on the litigants progressiveness or lack thereof.

Bassago
If every lawyer on earth were dropped into the middle of the ocean today the world would be a better place tomorrow. I don't have distaste for lawyers, I despise them as parasites. Have a nice day.

I have a hard time believing that eliminating any class of people is going to somehow make the earth a better place. I agree, there are plenty of bad lawyers out there just like bad carpenters, electricians, pilots, doctors, cooks, etc... but it takes all kinds to make the world go around.

Then again, I think it's a pretty common occurrence than most everyone claims to hate lawyers. Right up to the moment they get in trouble and need one to save their asses.

a reply to: Flatfish

Perhaps you misspoke but, are you saying that you think sharia law has a place in society?

a reply to: [post=17596632]JewelFlip[/post

Now you have a glimpse of the conservative "disassociative identity disorder". Layman terms, split personality.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Flatfish

Perhaps you misspoke but, are you saying that you think sharia law has a place in society?

Absolutely not! Perhaps you misunderstood.

My point was, Republicans seem to be dead set on passing some of the stupidest laws ever conceived just to have them struck down by the courts time and time again, wasting taxpayer dollars the whole while in the process.

You see, we don't need anti-Sharia legislation here in America because no one is trying to impose Sharia law to begin with and even if they did, it would only apply to Muslims.

While the GOP is stuck is a constant state of bitching about how much our government spends, they continue to pass legislation that is either inapplicable or flat out unconstitutional which eventually ends up being struck down by the courts at taxpayer expense, inevitably adding to the very same problem they pretend to be upset about.

Funny that the revolution was fought over taxes. yet the Democrats want more taxes to line their pockets for special projects.